Is the self all that can be known to exist?

[Edwardo Piet]

Nor can I.  I can certainly assess specific contradictions and suggest that they may be subtle this or thats, but without complete knowledge I can;t possibly make the claim that no contradictions exist or that my answer to any given contradiction - or indeed my set of answers to sets of contradictions, is an answer to -every- contradiction that may exist.

You can claim that some contradictions exist in some sense. (For example, a contradictory statement can exist in the sense that we can literally say "A= not A", we can mention it, but its actual usage is impossible) But you can't claim that any contradictions exist in all senses. You can't get an existent contradiction in the sense of something being 100% true and 100% false at the same time in the same respects from the same perspective. You can't get A=not A or something not being itself. You can't get anything that actually really violates the law of identity. You can get an equivocation that you fail to spot.

[Excited Penguin]

Dialetheism thread:

[Excited Penguin]

Dialetheism is the view that there are dialetheias. One can define a contradiction as a couple of sentences, one of which is the negation of the other, or as a conjunction of such sentences. Therefore, dialetheism amounts to the claim that there are true contradictions.

This is an example of the fallacy of equivocation.

A statement can't be simultaneously true and false, if you think otherwise you're equivocating.

Source:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

That's not what equivocation means and you're confusing your laws of thought here. This -would- be a violation of the law of non-contradiction(NC), if anything,  not of the one of identity (ID).

[Edwardo Piet]

It's an equivocation because it's equivocal.

The LOI and the LNC are both expressions of the same law. The first in positive form, the second in negative form. That something has to be something and that something cannot be not something are both expressing the same thing.

[Angrboda]

Why is it one or the other?  Responding with "it cannot be self contradictory" begs the question.

No it doesn't because something either is or is not. That's the premise.

That's not a premise.  That's an assertion, and a very questionable one.  You are simply begging the question.

Paradox exists, they are self contradictory.  We imagine that they are this way due to subtle fallacy, but it;s difficult to pin down which fallacy it might be, and not all dialetheisms could conccievably be answered with the same fallacy assuming some -were- answerable in this manner.

Dude, the premise starts with A=A. The paradox wouldn't even arise without it. It arises because of the limits of our language. Whatever is is, whatever is not is not. "Something is and is not at the same time in the same respects" literally makes no sense.

"This statement is true and false at the same time" makes no sense.

"This statement is false" is either true or not. It appears true when we consider it false and appears false when we consider it true but either way it's only true or false at one particular time from one particular perspective. It's the limits of language.

I can simply respond with "What statement? Your statement is incomplete."

You can respond any way you like, but labeling certain statements as non-statements simply because it plays havoc with your assumptions about logic simply smacks of special pleading.  It's a complete statement, it is truth apt, and there is no equivocation.  (Equivocation has to do with the meaning of a word or phrase, not one's viewpoint.  If I evaluate a logical statement with 64 truth table values, am I equivocating 64 times?  Pure bollocks.)


"Albeit in common parlance it is used in a variety of contexts, when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout."  ~ Wikipedia

[Edwardo Piet]

That something is or is not is a questionable assertion?

A=A is the premise. It makes no sense to say A=A is questionable.

"This statement is not true" is not truth-apt because "not true" adds nothing to the meaning of "this statement". If I say "it is true that I am happy" then it means that the statement "I am happy" is true. If I say "it is not true that I am happy" then it means that the statement "I am happy" is not true. The same cannot be said for "this statement". "This statement" is not a statement and adding "true" or "not true" to it adds nothing. This is why the paradox appears to happen.

The fallacy of equivocation is explicitly about when you use different senses of the same word to mean different things. This is, in other words, seeing the same word from different perspectives. Equivocation is about being equivocal, it's a fallacy of ambiguity. The point is that conflating the fact that an incomplete statement when looked one way is true, and looked another way is false, does not mean that the incomplete statement is "both true and false". If we are to say that it can be both true and false then the only way we can do that is redefining things so that a statement can be considered both true and false at the same time. Or in other words, redefining our axioms so that something can be both true and false at the same time. This is what dialetheism does. But relabelling things so "A" can be "Not A" doesn't change the fact that in reality A=A or something is what it is. The point is that the labelling is irrelevant. Nothing has to be assumed for something to be what it is.

[Excited Penguin]

In any case, bringing it back round to the self.  There are, sometimes, issues with self referential truth statements.

I'm not a Solipsist because whatever is, is. With or without my existence that is true.

How can you defend that statement ?

[Excited Penguin]

Practicality implies goals. What are your goals ? Are you seeking impact? Which sort? Are you seeking societal change ? Of what kind? Why?

I think the goal of philosophy is to reach a truth using logic. But I personally only find philosophy useful if these truths have an impact on the way I do things or the way society does things. Political philosophy can have (and has had) this sort of impact. Solipsism cannot.

Sorry, I usually stay away from this subforum because I'm no fun when it comes to this stuff. If I don't see practicality in something I don't see the point in it at all.

You haven't told me what you mean by practicality or why you want it so much that nothing can take its place.

[Tiberius]

I think therefore I am.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My senses have gotten me through half-a-century of life. I'm cool with them -- I haven't walked off'n a cliff or jumped out a building telling myself I can fly.

I find solipsism useless since there aren't any consequences to it. Even if I'm the only thing that's "real," everything else is so real to me that it wouldn't make a difference. But ignoring that, I don't actually find the idea frightening like many people do. What I find more frightening would be the idea that I'm just a very high-functioning simulation in somebody else's experience, and they're the only "real" one.

What's frightening about that? You're relieved of moral authority, and don't even have to own your own circumstances, being at the whim of an omnipotent (from your perspective) being.